Yesterday, I wrote [a post](http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/02/blogging_about_peerreviewed_re.php) about Casey Luskin's misuse of the ResearchBlogging.org "Blogging about Peer-Reviewed Research" icon. Today, Casey removed the icon from his post, and provided [an explanation](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/leslie_orgel_metabolic_origin.html#researchblogging) for his actions. I'm glad that he decided to cease his misuse of the icon, but his explanation leaves a heck of a lot to be desired. He admits no wrongdoing, makes no apology, and presents a series of excuses for his actions that - even if accepted at face value - are weak at best.
The first excuse he presents is essentially a claim that he didn't know what he was doing:
A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research. At the time, I was unaware of ResearchBlogging.org and the fact that they requested registration in order to use their graphic. Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked. (Italics in original.)
I'm finding it very hard to believe that Casey was unaware of ResearchBlogging.org when he used the icon. Here's why:
[Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left:](http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2008/02/luskin_and_the_peerreviewed_re.php)